Discussion article: Grenada and the Falklands Behind Reagan's invasior

Scan page 13

LIKE many SO supporters at the time, Alan Thornett partly disagreed with the attitude SO took to the Falklands War. He believed that after the sinking of the Argentinian ship Belgrano SO should have turned to positive support of Argentina.

SO opposed the war with the slogan, carried on our masthead every week, "The enemy is at home". We called for working class action to stop the war. We did not, however, In the following article Alan Thornett argues that the invasion of Grenada is organically linked to the Falklands war.

He argues that Thatcher's victory over Argentina "opened up hope of beginning to turn the tide against national liberation struggles and hopefully beginning to roll them back".

The "new climate" , he argues, allowed Begin to invade the Lebanon. "Thatcher's South Atlantic victory turned the balance of forces on a world scale significantly to the advanThe reactionary consequences can also be seen in the Iran-Iraq war: France is supplying Iraq with advanced jets and Exocet missiles ... to tip the balance against Iran in the Gulf War." But this can lead to Iran trying to block the Gulf shipping lanes - that in turn can lead to American Middle East action to free them. "Logically", , invasion of Nicaragua is the next step. "Grenada demonstrates that politically Reagan might be prepared to do it despite international outrage. «The Falklands Factor has become a major issue in world support Argentina. tage of imperialism" politics. " (AT's emphasis).

An alternative view will THE invasion of Grenada by the USA is a major escalation of the US war drive on a world scale.

It is an open act of war designed to establish a government in Grenada which is acceptable to the USA: but also to push the balance of forces on a world scale further to the advantage of the US.

It is designed to create a situation in which the USA can use military force as a matter of course.

It creates conditions in which the danger of the invasion of Nicaragua by US-led forces is seriously increased. An increase in US intervention into El Salvador is very likely.

Reagan's television speech on Thursday night, three days after the invasion, spells out the change in the world situation which is taking place.

Despite previous talk of 'peace-keeping", , the USA was in Lebanon, he said, "i a order to protect the vital intere sts of the USA':

He went on:

'Can the United States or the free world for that matter stand by and see the Middle East incorporated into the Soviet Block? What of Western Europe and Japan's dependence on Middle East oil for the energy to fuel their industries."

When turning to the invasion of Grenada he went further. ''The world has changed," he said.

The defence of the USA used to mean defending our shores and our shipping lanes. Now the defence of the USA means defending our interests in "far away places" . We have to be able to identify those places and take the appropriate action.

This is the language of imperialism on the offensive. It is the product of a world situation which has changed drastically in the last four years.

The previous period, from 1975 to 1979, saw a number of successes for the anti-imperialist struggle. Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Iran and Nicaragua were victories which threw the imperialists into retreat.

The local agents of imperialism were weakened, and weak capitalist governments facing an upsurge in mass militant struggles and anti-imperialist feeling were unable to rely on direct military aid to back them up.

After the Nicaraguan revolution, Carter, under pressure from Pentagon generals, stepped up the US war-drive and drew the line. The US was not prepared to see El Salvador go next. Carter began to escalate military intervention in El Salvador and the Central American region. That same policy was echoed and amplified by Reagan.

It is against this background that Thatcher's war in the South Atlantic had a major international significance.

Thatcher's victory over Argentina broke through the 'Vietnam Syndrome' and gave a green light for imperialism to use military force openly once It opened up hopes of beginning to turn the tide against national liberation struggles and hopefully beginning to roll them back.

Sensing the new climate, Israeli leader Begin justified his invasion of the Lebanon in that way. If Mrs Thatcher could defend her interests 8,000 miles away, he said, he could defend his 60 miles away.

Thatcher's South Atlantic victory turned the balance of forces on a world scale significantly to the advantage of imperialism.

Although the Argentine junta was defeated and fell, and they were forced to legalise political parties and call an election, the masses throughout Latin America as a whole were reminded of the power of imperialism. They were weakened and made far more vulnerable as a result.

The economic conditions in Argentina are such that the danger of military rule will still be there.

The real results of Thatcher's victory • was seen in Israeli barbarism in Lebanon. Since then we have seen French imperialism under Mitterrand enter the multi-national force in open military support of the Falangist regime.

The French imperialist leaders have also decided to supply advanced jets and Exocet missiles to Iraq as an effort to tip the balance against Iran in the Gulf war.

That is also an intervention which has huge implications throughout the world.

If the Exocets are used by Iraq against Iran it could lead rapidly to Iranian attempts to block the Gulf shipping lanes: this in turn would prompt the use by Reagan of the US Rapid Deployment Force to free them.

Though it is often viewed in Britain as simply one of the major factors in Thatcher's election victory, the Falklands Factor has become a major issue in world politics.

Though Reagan and Thatcher have different tactical views on the Grenada situation, Reagan's own actions are influenced by the post-Falklands situation.

These are the conditions under which the US invaded Grenada in defiance of the UN Charter and international law which they claim to uphold.

Since the Vietnam defeat, US public opinion has opposed US involvement in further wars: but the popularity of Thatcher and the rise of national chauvinism in Britain after the Falklands now appears to be echoed in the USA after Grenada.

Reagan presumably hopes that if the support continues it will win him the next election as it did Thatcher.

Already he has dramatically shifted his grounds for the invasion. At first it was to "rescue" US nationals (who did not need rescuing); now it is simply to stop communist subversion in the region.

Nicaragua is now quite clearly in the front line against the US war drive.

CIA operations into Nicaragua from Honduras and Costa Rica have been escalating for months. 7,000 Contra guerrillas have been unsuccessfully undertaking operations into Nicaragua out of Honduras where the USA has been pouring in troops for "exercises"

An invasion of Nicaragua would be a huge step for the USA to take even now. But it must be seen as a real danger and everything done to warn about it.

Logically it is the next step. Grenada demonstrates that politically Reagan might be prepared to do it despite international outrage.

Militarily it is a very much bigger task. Reagan however may calculate that it is militarily possible. Nicaragua is not South Vietnam with a border with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union and China in the Grenada has shown that neither Cuba nor the Soviet Union can be relied upon to give assistance in such conditions.

The international workers movement is the only force which can influence the situation. It must be alerted, and mobilised in defence of Nicaragua and against the US war drive.

*Troops out of Grenada!

*US hands off Central New issue now out!

Heffer and Kinnock

the Middle East.

The fight in Fatah.

Rd., London N16. CAMPAIGNfor PALESTINE NEWSLETTER

Scan page 14

Socialist Organiser November no.15

----- pull-quotes -----

10p plus postage from LMCfP, 28 Carlton Mansions, Holmleigh